Poll about missiles.

[Prefontaine]

I haven't found the need to really use missiles since maybe the Marionette war? I've popped of a few since then but no where near the amount I did back in the day. Not sure if I'm alone on the feeling but I feel like missiles aren't really a viable weapon anymore. Planes/Navy do more damage than missiles these days for half the action points. I wanted to think about changing missiles to being used for something else than an infra-killing weapon. This thread is not about making suggestions on how to change missiles, but saying whether or not missiles are currently useful. Do not post suggestions for how to change missiles. That will be for a later time.

[Jodo]

Missiles are the poor mans nukes. Worthwhile when you are wiped, and have nothing else to spend MAPs on.

[Greatnate]

Missiles are so garbage that I do not miss my MLP midroll.

[Beowulf the Second]

I appreciate them for costing so little gas/muni, they're kind of efficient that way? But MAP wise they suck

[K Rudd]

With most nations having iron dome these days i do not want a 50/50 on something that cost some much map points and can literally do nothing if rng jesus is not pleased

[Sailor Jerry]

I had the MLP, but once I gotthe NRF and realizing ther uz the potential for a lot of wasted time in shooting a missile just to have 50/50 chance of it been intercepted. So I dropped the MLP and got the CCE project. I kow, I know......wasted money and time buying a project, just to turn around and get rid of it. Well, thats what credits are for......reseting your timers!

[Atzuya]

Missiles are situational at best. They could be a good way to take a potshot at your enemy when you don't feel like wasting millions in resources doing conventional attacks or when you ran out of units. They could also be useful when you need to take down an improvement or two, although it's far from reliable on doing that. It's not the best thing to have, but personally I like having it around.

[Buorhann]

I use it for Improvement killing, honestly, but with Tactician in play now - that may change.

[Avruch]

The only real value is killing improvements, but imho you get more value out of an econ project in the same project slot. 

[Vanek26]

Last war I was bored and shot a few at zeroed enemies, but then they got blocked, so I went back to bombing. So no, its rather useless. 

[Dr Rush]

Missiles are the poor mans nukes. Worthwhile when you are wiped, and have nothing else to spend MAPs on.

Yeah but they are not really worth the project slot for that.

[Prefontaine]

Yeah but they are not really worth the project slot for that.

Might be worth while around 5-8 city marks.

[Dr Rush]

Might be worth while around 5-8 city marks.

Which is a fairly small field for utility, a rather large portion of the player could skip over that range before ever using it. Plus if your winning it might save some dough on the infra killing but the benefit of other projects (say steelworks) have a better roi to set against that & are useful all the time not just a small part. Which relegates it to a losers weapon & therefore pretty far down the list of projects you should build (unless your rose).

[Caecus]

perhaps what may increase the usage of missiles is having the ability to target specific improvements? Even then though, I still wouldn't use MLP. 

[LordRahl2]

Maybe other than power plants?

[Andrezj Kolarov]

perhaps what may increase the usage of missiles is having the ability to target specific improvements? Even then though, I still wouldn't use MLP. 

I think what would make them more useful is if the loooong-promised Perks get implemented.

[Prefontaine]

Do not post suggestions for how to change missiles. That will be for a later time.

 

perhaps what may increase the usage of missiles is having the ability to target specific improvements?

 

 

Please adhere to the extremely simple guidelines for this thread. This thread is not for addressing changes to missiles, merely pointing out if when and how missiles are or are not useful. 

[LordRahl2]

I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

[Woot]

As long as other people keep using them, they're useful to me.

[Bezzers]

For a small nation, yes. While they are not a massive part of war, enough people still get the iron dome so obviously people still feel threatened by them. While they do not do much in terms of high damage, they are a nice touch to anyones miltary, unless you have nukes. Then dont bother.

[Charles Bolivar]

They are decent when smaller before everyone in range buys a dome but when you get roughly 10-12 cities they are obsolete due to planes being the superior weapon. Pretty much useful as a weapon only once been zeroed or depleted by enemy nations in my experience.

[Caecus]

I think what would make them more useful is if the loooong-promised Perks get implemented.

 

Meh, even then, the perks for missiles only affected soldiers. I still wouldn't use them. Maybe larger nations though, where thousands of troops actually count for something. I think missiles are alright when your opponent doesn't have enough infrastructure to warrant a nuke, but enough where you would want to destroy. In a losing war, of course. 

[Andrezj Kolarov]

Meh, even then, the perks for missiles only affected soldiers. I still wouldn't use them. Maybe larger nations though, where thousands of troops actually count for something. I think missiles are alright when your opponent doesn't have enough infrastructure to warrant a nuke, but enough where you would want to destroy. In a losing war, of course. 

That's just the Chemical warhead though, we don't know what the Bio warhead will do.

[James II]

44 to 13 hmm....

[Prefontaine]

44 to 13 hmm....